"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Nope. Plan A. Let the corrupt politicians pass all the unconstitutional laws they want, and hope the courts rule in our favor.

Welcome to California.

The only problem with 'HOPE' is that many Judges and basically ALL DA's are ELECTED or APPOINTED, so there is the ongoing issue that ,being polishiitins, they all want to stay in power, further their own agendas and get pay-o-la one way or another for their actions... many DA's only give a crap about CONVICTIONS, not JUSTICE, if they convict the wrong guy or gal, OH WELL, appeal while getting AR and rotting in prison..... Many Judges are out and out rotten liberals and use the bench to make policy according their ideals...

EVEN IF we get a 'ruled in our favor' the state will appeal and one way or another, unless verified by a group of GUN OWNERS, the records,registrations,etc will NEVER BE ERASED or DESTROYED either in hard copy or in the 'puter......

I really hate every aspect of this state's government at every level......

We are all in S**t Sandwich and morass of assinine people in positions to make policy that have no biz being there... I would not trust these idiots to change the oil in my car or mow my lawn....

__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Who's we? You're (mistakenly) connecting two very different cohorts - those with a clue, and those without.

I was being sarcastic. The tactics suggested by the majority on this site suck.

The ONLY way to keep our rights is to exercise them like they were never threatened in the first place. Make them deal with it. There's not enough private prisons to hold us all. Eventually the grabbers would give up.

It shocked me when I found out why every one was calling this a briar patch bill. I thought it was too, but for a completely different reason. PM me if you'd like to know why.

__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

Sounds like the usual long road through the courts with slow responses, what happened to the full frontal stop it before it starts. I'm starting to get some real mixed signals with tactics on how this legislation will be fought NOT GOOD

You act as if we have a choice in whether legislation will pass. We play with the hand that is dealt to us.

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

You act as if we have a choice in whether legislation will pass. We play with the hand that is dealt to us.

Legislation is nothing but words on paper. You have a choice in how you will respond to it.

__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

She played a role now filled by somebody else. The names are unimportant; they chage. The roles do not. Do you really not understand what I am alluding to?

Sure i do. AND its flawed. Don't you see how Gene is encouraging registration so he can have a new play ground to play on instead of saying "call your reps, demand and end to this type of law making" or flood them with emails. NO he is licking his chops wanting to play with what they hand him.

Geez louise at least tell me he thinks the governor would veto this thing.

We should do a million person march on Ball-Sacramento and the capital and occupy it, somehow do a blanket of the worst charges against all of them possible for actions against the COTUS, CITIZENS and DISCRIMINATION..... Face it, 'we' as gunowners are being PERSECUTED because we are 'different' and if the craaaappp hits the flapper have a means to 'ultimately' change things.......

Another way to look at it is gun owners are being discriminated just like gays,lesbians,minorities, you name it.... guess we have to also 'play that card'.

I KNOW there is some racketeering, extortion, coercion going on against us, just look at the bills.... you own something prior to the 'ban' and IF you DO NOT WANT to GO TO PRISON AS A FELON, you WILL PAY and ,violating your 4th,5th,and other Ammendments, 'legally ' turn over information that 'they can use against 'you' ....or if you do not and 'they' find your stuff you will not pass 'go' you go straight to prison......no wonder they are clearing the prisons....

__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

The majority? Are those the same two cohorts or not? Make up your mind.

Right.

Doesn't have to be prison. It could be a simple as precluding you from getting a job, loan, drivers license, or credit card.

Wrong. They will never give up.

Thank you for proving my point. When the Mulford Act was signed, how did people respond? They let their rights be infringed. What the Black Panthers did was a legal act. Once the CA govt made it illegal, they should've kept doing it anyway. And so should every other gun owner in CA.

And I fail to see how an employer, bank, DMV, or AmEx employee will know if I'm concealed carrying, unless they threaten my life. And with the way things are going, even those that comply will have those same restrictions to worry about. There are grabbers out there that want us registered like friggin' sex offenders.

__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

Legislation is nothing but words on paper. You have a choice in how you will respond to it.

Next time you get a traffic ticket, feel free to ignore those words on the paper. Same with your credit card bill. Or that notice that your DL expired. Or the words printed on your rental agreement. Or the ones on your mortgage.

You talk tough for an anarchist. Let's see you do something about it, tough guy.

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Next time you get a traffic ticket, feel free to ignore those words on the paper. Same with your credit card bill. Or that notice that your DL expired. Or the words printed on your rental agreement. Or the ones on your mortgage.

You talk tough for an anarchist. Let's see you do something about it, tough guy.

A traffic ticket must be paid. I signed a contract to comply with that. Never did I sign a contract to give up my 2nd Amendment rights. Same with a credit card bill, an expired license, and rental agreement. Those all have contracts, signed by me.

Also, I am not an anarchist. Didn't know believing in the Constitution (rule of law) made me an anarchist. And I do something about it every single day. My rights will not be infringed unless I allow them to be. Save the tough guy talk for someone else.

__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

The BIGGEST problem is that there was NEVER a 2A IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE Constitution........ THAT is where they are ultimately getting their Balls from.... 'dont like it, move out, we did not incorporate it here so it does not apply to you worthless peasants who inhabit this state and are forced to comply with us, what do you think this is, the USA?'

__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

Thank you for proving my point. When the Mulford Act was signed, how did people respond? They let their rights be infringed.

As opposed to doing what, tough guy?

Quote:

they should've kept doing it anyway. And so should every other gun owner in CA.

You first. Go ahead.

Quote:

And I fail to see how an employer, bank, DMV, or AmEx employee will know if I'm concealed carrying, unless they threaten my life.

Once you are prosecuted as a felon, they'll know. And once you "fight back" and defy the warrant out for your arrest (or violate your terms of parole), they won't have to do a damn thing to ruin your life except sit back and watch you live a life on the run.

In any case, you are missing the point. Why did the DOJ refuse the legal authority to widen the AW ban list?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't bother answering until you do.

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Once you are prosecuted as a felon, they'll know. And once you "fight back" and defy the warrant out for your arrest (or violate your terms of parole), they won't have to do a damn thing to ruin your life except sit back and watch you live a life on the run.

In any case, you are missing the point. Why did the DOJ refuse the legal authority to widen the AW ban list?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't bother answering until you do.

WOW just WOW! How about not being so ignorant to think the government was going to stop there. The ONLY reason this was not fought is that the media portrayed this as taking guns from the black criminals. No one back then thought gun laws would go as far as they have come.

You fight, let your voice be heard, and you challenge your local politicians.

Once you are prosecuted as a felon, they'll know. And once you "fight back" and defy the warrant out for your arrest (or violate your terms of parole), they won't have to do a damn thing to ruin your life except sit back and watch you live a life on the run.

In any case, you are missing the point. Why did the DOJ refuse the legal authority to widen the AW ban list?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't bother answering until you do.

The life of a scared subject must be pretty disheartening.

__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

I'm not scared in the least. I understand the rules of engagement and what it takes to win where you do not.

You mean like depending on corrupt courts to decide what rights we have? Took them over 200 years to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, right? How long do you think you will live? Once they have full registration, how long will it take before confiscation happens? Once the names are written down, you're SOL. The violations of FOPA prove that.

__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

Legislation is nothing but words on paper. You have a choice in how you will respond to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilro

A traffic ticket must be paid. I signed a contract to comply with that. Never did I sign a contract to give up my 2nd Amendment rights. Same with a credit card bill, an expired license, and rental agreement. Those all have contracts, signed by me.

Also, I am not an anarchist. Didn't know believing in the Constitution (rule of law) made me an anarchist. And I do something about it every single day. My rights will not be infringed unless I allow them to be. Save the tough guy talk for someone else.

But contracts are "nothing but words on paper."

__________________
Check out the new and exciting twin stick shooter Omega Reaction on Steam!

I'm suggesting we threaten to comply when asked to register thousands (millions?) of firearms as newly minted RAWs.

I can't believe somebody who has been around as long as you is demanding I be explicit about this. Should we really be helping Steinberg fix this legislation before putting up for a vote?

You do understand that if the registration is constitutional that your newly RAW will not be able to be sold, transferred, or simply passed on to your children right? You do understand that if GENE can't get around this, that younger generations will have no access to these firearms, RIGHT?

You want to put all your eggs in one big CGF easter basket, go for it.

By signing your name, or clicking 'I agree.', you have issued your response. If you choose to lie, and not stick to your own compliance, you are a cowardly man.

__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

Are you suggesting the DOJ won't blink this time? How have things changed since then? Are they willing to create millions of new AWs in CA where there weren't willing to create a few thousand before?

And how else do you suggest we "fight" this legislation before it passes? Remember: your opinion means nothing to congress, and never has. Surely you aren't suggesting we open carry on the steps of capitol hill, like the other geniuses in this thread?

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

You act as if we have a choice in whether legislation will pass. We play with the hand that is dealt to us.

You have missed the greater sub text to the on going debates over the years as to how we approach these bills and what we do to try and kill them early through committee and lobbying efforts, and personal meetings with legislators and key figures in the know. Now the only talk seems to be post defeat and what will happen in court.

You mean like depending on corrupt courts to decide what rights we have? Took them over 200 years to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, right? How long do you think you will live? Once they have full registration, how long will it take before confiscation happens? Once the names are written down, you're SOL. The violations of FOPA prove that.

There are three branches of government. If you are suggesting the courts will not grant us succor, there is nothing left, and the only solution is anarchy.

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Are you suggesting the DOJ won't blink this time? How have things changed since then? Are they willing to create millions of new AWs in CA where there weren't willing to create a few thousand before?

And how else do you suggest we "fight" this legislation before it passes? Remember: your opinion means nothing to congress, and never has. Surely you aren't suggesting we open carry on the steps of capitol hill, like the other geniuses in this thread?

Funny that that's what you think I suggested. Do you march on capitol hill in your normal daily life? I'm saying IGNORE unconstitutional laws. Not start a riot.

__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.

Curtis,
You are playing chicken with our constitutional rights. Do you actually believe that confiscation will NOT follow registration? You act like you are so tricky about the RAW registration. Haven't you ever considered that they wrote the "flaw" on purpose?

You are a mouse smelling cheese...

Geez, if a mouse can figure out that a piece of cheese is sitting on a trap, we should be able see the trap they are trying to set for us.

You have missed the greater sub text to the on going debates over the years as to how we approach these bills and what we do to try and kill them early through committee and lobbying efforts, and personal meetings with legislators and key figures in the know. Now the only talk seems to be post defeat and what will happen in court.

Exactly and a select few will make an incredible amount of money fighting beyond that point.

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

I won't say more regarding the AW registration threat. It annoys me that you (of all people) aren't understanding what I'm implying. I know the rest of the posters are noobs, but you should know better.

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris